...oops, WRONG aliens!
Full Disclosure:
Q. What's the difference between Lewinsky/Clinton and Bush/Kennedy?
A. 1. No blue dress.
2. (Gulp!) No stain, either.
NO to amnesty.
Posted on 05/19/2007 4:48:30 PM PDT by ER_in_OC,CA
WASHINGTON — The Capitol phones were ringing off the hook Friday.
In fact, the day proved to be one of the busiest in months for call volume, Senate aides said.
The reason? Immigration.
Next week, the Senate plans to take up the divisive bill that would provide the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. with a pathway to legal status, and callers felt the need to vent, mostly.
"I'd say the calls have been heavy, very heavy in fact," said Dan McLaughlin, communications director for Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla. "The overwhelming number of callers were opposed to the immigration deal. I would say they're opposed largely on the basis of the view that it offers amnesty, even though the bill does not."
The situation was as bad, if not worse, in Sen. Mel Martinez's office. The Florida Republican you'll recall helped broker the controversial immigration deal this week.
"Yeah, we're getting a lot of calls," Martinez spokesman Ken Lundberg said, with a chuckle. "Not just from Florida, but across the nation on both sides of the issue."
McLaughlin said Nelson advised his aides to make note of the callers' concerns.
For now, the senator is "wanting to reserve judgment on the developing deal," McLaughlin said, adding that a 384-page draft of the bill had been delivered to the office Friday morning.
Even if the sweeping immigration legislation does pass the Senate in the coming days, the real problems begin in the House, where members — especially Republicans — haven't been too keen on a comprehensive approach.
Last year, with the mid-term elections right around the corner, House lawmakers chose to stick to a border protection bill.
It doesn't look like much has changed.
On Friday, Rep. Dave Weldon, the Republican who represents Vero Beach, called the Senate proposal "a bad bill."
"Amnesty first, border security later, American citizens last, that's the bottom line of this proposal," Weldon said.
Bush is a CHIMP!
Keep chuckling.
Why don’t we just change the title to Pray for President Bush to grow a brain?
...oops, WRONG aliens!
Full Disclosure:
Q. What's the difference between Lewinsky/Clinton and Bush/Kennedy?
A. 1. No blue dress.
2. (Gulp!) No stain, either.
NO to amnesty.
Keep chuckling.
That's much different than USING narcotics (which would violate US LAW).
Went through the whole bill where it could say "controlled", or "substance" or "narcotic" or "narcotics", and it's pretty consistent in taking this new track.
Basically current law keeps you out if you've ever used unlawful narcotics, and that applies even if those narcotics are legal elsewhere.
This new law is going to require that you "violate" US laws ~ and that presupposes some sort of arrest and conviction.
Interesting that some law drafting clerk over at the Senate saw fit to disarm the provisions against letting in more dopers.
We do, after all, have all the dopers we can handle and I daresay not a single member of the Senate could stand there straight faced and tell anybody we needed more of them ~ but there you have it ~ seems the US Senators who served on that "compromise committee" want more dopers let into the US on a permanent basis.
Wasn't John McCain's wife a doper? How about Kennedy's wife?
Well there you have it again ~ members of the Senate taking care of their own.
Now you'll need to have violated US law. Current law prohibits entry if you're simply a doper ~ even if you've never had conflicts with US laws.
This sort of thing conjures up membories of the conspiracy theory that brought the Clinton and Bush family into cohoots with each other at MENA AIRPORT in Arkansas.
"W" can clear the air on this once and for all by disavowing this bill before it sees the light of day, or maybe we'll all have to go back to re-reviewing the MENA scandal.
You're right, it is war, and there are 20 million stinking invaders against us, us being U.S. citizens, and the invaders are being led by none other than our President. He has chosen sides against his own countrymen and I see him no better than a quisling.
Bookmarking. Thanks!
He acts like, overtly, a quisling, sure, but he is still worthy of being addressed like the gentleman who holds the office.
A healthy republic criticizes, with vigor, another’s positions. I just hate to see the visceral disrespect for the Office and the person elected, that’s all. Everything else has no bag limit.
It’s what separates Us from Them.
The President is the CINC of the military, not the country.
Regardless of that little nit, the President is actively working against the security and future existence of the United States of America under the Constitution. He isn’t serious about the “war” at all. If he were, he would not praise our enemy, fund them, allow and encourage their entry into our nation, and insult his (now) former supporters when they question him.
CALL! CALL! CALL! CALL! AND KEEP CALLING TILL THE LINES FRY!
WRITE! WRITE! WRITE! WRITE! TILL YOU RUN OUT OF INK IN YOUR PEN!
Bombard the Democrats as well, especially the ones that ran on an anti immigration plank and the ones in marginal districts who could be vulnerable. keep pounding on them.
Amen lady.
Respectfully, I disagree.
We are not in active combat against our southern neighbor. The germaneness of such conflict should be addressed by our legislative bodies, which they have hamfistedly attempted, and hopefully, will endeavor in face of ultimate failure.
We are, however, at war in the Middle East, so supported by our milquetoast Congress.
Control of the southern border, for better or for worse, is an Administrative matter. We are not helpless, as legislation is pending.
Believe. Why Dubya wants this so badly is a complete mystery, but we still have our “lawmakers” to pressure.
You might have been polite enough to say "I respect you but I'm very disappointed in you General Arnold" but don't be surprised if this is not the way others would handle the situation.
That's why We The People hold elections. I want unconditional victory.
Control of our borders is a national security issue more important than control of the Iraq/Iran or Afghanistan/Pakistan borders. We spend tens of billions and the lives of our brave soldiers defending those far off, foreign borders yet let our own Country be invaded without even an attempt at defense. More Americans are killed every day by the illegal invaders of this Country than are killed in, what some people call, the war on terror. Plenty of people are terrorized every day by the illegal invaders. If your the President and you consciously violate your oath of office to defend our Country and enforce our laws you should resign, before you are "asked" to leave.
Most certainly. However, being elected Chief Exec and suddenly firing tens of thousands of ineffective bureaucrats in their respective agencies would result in years upon years of Wilson/Plame type crap that would tie up the Feds for years. You saw 9/11. Gore's court challenges hogtied the "transition".
These people fight with no sense of human decency whatsoever, Man.
It's an attempt at an end run around the 13th Amendment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.